The Attorney General v Adrian Marius Adam

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 23 October 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] JRC 215
• Date: 23 October 2015

[2015] JRC 215

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., DeputyBailiff, andJurats KerleyandBlampied

The Attorney General

and

Adrian Marius Adam

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. F. Orchard for the Defendant.

Authorities

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

Camacho -v- AG [2007] JLR 462

Channing -v- AG 2001/213 .

Inferior Number Sentencing — fraud — obtaining goods by false pretences — attempting to obtain goods by false pretences— removing criminal property from Jersey.

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

First Indictment

5 counts of: Fraud (Counts 1 to 5).

8 counts of: Obtaining services by false pretences (Counts 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 24).

9 counts of: Attempting to obtain services by false pretences (Counts 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16).

Second Indictment

5 counts of: Removing criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 to 5).

Age: 30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant Adam, a Romanian national, was one of a small group of Romanian criminals who targeted Jersey as both a platform from which to commit internet frauds against victims around the world, and as a place in which to commit crimes against banks and mobile phone retailers. Haffner, also a Romanian national, joined Adam in Jersey at the end of his offending in a single offence of obtaining goods by deception as well as engaging in a conspiracy with other members of the criminal gang to pervert the course of justice by concealing evidence of fraud.

The internet frauds resulted in five would-be holiday makers based in Australia and the US parting with a total of £7,800 through an on-line scam perpetrated by Adam in which bogus holiday booking web sites were created to lure victims. The victims believed they were paying to rent holiday apartments, but instead the money was routed to a Jersey bank account set up by Adam, (Fraud x 5). From that account, the funds were transferred the very same day to accounts in London where other gang members withdrew the proceeds in cash, (money laundering x 5).

At the same time as the internet frauds were being committed, (from August to November 2014), Adam travelled to Jersey from the UK on several occasions. On these visits he used forged identity papers in a number of false names either to open or attempt to open Jersey bank accounts, (obtaining/attempting to obtain services by false pretences). Where successful in opening such accounts, he then used those account details and the false identities to obtain both hire purchase loans and contracts for a string of high-end electronic devices from financial services provides and retailers in Jersey, goods and services worth some £4,700 in total. In each instance, Adam paid only the initial deposit on each of the devices, which were then taken back to the UK and sold for his benefit and that of another gang member. The hire purchase loans, used to buy other such devices, were never repaid.

Haffner joined Adam on Adam's final visit to Jersey and stayed with him in a rented apartment in St Helier. She assisted him acquiring a smart phone by deception. She then returned to the apartment where, following Adam's arrest, she received, from a third gang member, text instructions to find and destroy some of the forged identity documents which Adam had used in his offending. She was arrested before she could carry out her instructions.

Aggravating features:

Abuse of Jersey's good name in the internet frauds, and abuse of the Island's financial systems to receive and pay away the proceeds of those frauds, well-planned and sophisticated deceptions across the indictment, carried out with skill and over a protracted period by a gang which targeted Jersey expressly for the purpose and in order to distance themselves from their offending.

Details of Mitigation:

Acceptably comprehensive guilty pleas were offered at a reasonably early stage in the life of the case, previous good character, admissions in interview.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1: 15 months' imprisonment.

Count 2: 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 3: 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 4: 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 5: 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 6: 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 7: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 8: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 9: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 t0 5.

Count 10: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 11: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 12: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 13: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 14: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 15: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 16: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 17: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 18: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 19: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 20: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 22: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Count 24: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Second Indictment

Count 1: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to the First Indictment.

Count...